miRNAs as biomarkers of orofacial clefts: A systematic review.

Orofacial clefts are facial malformations caused by the improper development of the lips and palate. Many genetic and epigenetic molecules have been involved in the mechanisms of orofacial clefts, one of which are miRNAs. This systematic review aimed to identify miRNAs associated to non-syndromic orofacial clefts in humans. After applying a series of criteria, four studies were selected for analysis. In total, one hundred miRNAs were observed in the literature, of which 57 were reported as upregulated and 43 as downregulated in all orofacial cleft classifications. Moreover, nine miRNAs were differentially expressed only in cleft palate patients, which might suggest distinct regulatory mechanisms for the etiology of cleft lips and palates. We suggest broader population sampling in order to include diverse ethnic groups in the future, as well as analyses toward identifying miRNA target genes and pathways. We highlight the need for experimental validation and of these results to allow further translational approaches and clinical applications.

Prognosis for the impacted lower third molars: Panoramic reconstruction versus tomographic images.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this cross-sectional accuracy study was to compare panoramic reconstruction (PR) and multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) images, which are used to establish the prognosis for impacted mandibular third molars in relation to professional decision making. STUDY DESIGN: Images of 10 patients who had undergone cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination were selected, resulting in 2 distinct groups of images, with 10 in each group: PR and MPR. To check prognostic accuracy, 2 images from each group were randomly selected and reinserted into the sample, totaling 24 images. A questionnaire was completed by 54 professionals: 27 orthodontists and 27 oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMFSs). Data were evaluated by using the χ2 and McNemar's tests and Kappa statistics at P < .05. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences when isolated PR images were compared with MPR images by orthodontists (P = .72) or OMFSs (P = .45). However, there were significant differences in the professional decision regarding the prognosis for impacted teeth, where OMFSs indicated the need for more extractions compared with orthodontists (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: There are no differences between PR and multiplanar CBCT images with regard to the determination of the prognosis for impacted mandibular third molars. However, there was a difference in the decision making between the different specialties.